User talk:High Peak MP

Possible copyright violations with images
Can I suggest you take care with images of British MPs uploaded by sock puppets (or possible sock puppets) of Marquis de la Eirron? The user who uploaded both the images you reverted to previously has been blocked form the Commons for abusing multiple accounts and is quite possible a SP.

Just a friendly word of advice and all. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The images have been released by the Department of Transport so I cannot understand what the problem may be? High Peak MP (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the FoI request asks if they have the images. They provide the images - without explicitly stating that the images have been released under the OGL - simply that the "information" has been released to someone or other. I would argue - very strongly as you no doubt know - that this means that the terms of the release are unclear.


 * It may well be that the government has released these images under an OGL license. Frankly I can't tell. I can, however, tell that the user who uploaded them to the commons is banned for abusing multiple accounts and that the same or very similar images have been added to pages here by a persistent sock puppet. It's probably a very good idea, therefore, to be very, very cautious before adding them back. To be just as frank, the images already on the pages are at least as good if not better than official portraits - it's not as if wikipedia is a branch of the government and official portriats are released in certain styles to support public perception of government. So probably a good idea to leave these as they are I reckon. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I have just read the FoI and it seems to say can you "Release the images under the OGL" if these images had not been released under the OGL then they would have clearly stated and the civil servant in charge would have made that fact clear. The person who asked has also stated that they would be added to wikipedia. I have just looked at another request: and the Civil Servant clearly say "I am advised by our lawyers that you do not need our written permission to re-use the images from HM Treasury if they are under the Open Government Licence", he then proceeds to add a link to this Government website:  showing what the OGL stands for. I will not revert the images but I think this has shown that any images released under the Open Government Licence may be used on wikipedia without fear of legal threats or copyright. High Peak MP (talk) 21:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * No, clearly not the case - the FoI requests that the info be released under the OGL, yes - but the response simply states that the "information" can be provided. It doesn't mention anywhere that the images are definitely released under the OGL, simply that the information has been provided *for the person who requested it* - not how they might be able to use it. That may well be an issue with the way in which the standard letter is phrased rather than with their intention.


 * The treasury images are not released under the OGL because the treasury website says they aren't necessarily released under it and we have no confirmation that they have been. The Wdyk request says that they are only usable if the teasury has released them under the OGL - but the treasury website is clear that images can't be used without specific written permission iirc.


 * All of which bypasses the real issues tbh - the images already in place are absolutely fine; "official" portraits are produced for specific, public relations purposes and we shouldn't be pushing any organisations pov; persistent sock puppets or banned users are banned for good reason. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The response clearly shows not only that the information is available but also that it has been release . Images that have been released under the OGL may be used on wikipedia, fact, that is how the law works. The Department for Transport has clearly sent these images under the OGL as that is what they were asked to be sent under, as they could have denied the request, but since the images are already out under the OGL they didn't have to. Also here is the DofT website go to the bottom and it clearly states "All content is available under the Open Government Licence, except where otherwise stated", then click on Crown Copyright  and then OGL.


 * You mention HM Treasury as not allowing images under the OGL but here is what it says under HM Treasury Copyright which states "You may use and re-use the information featured on this website (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence.". You then go onto say some stuff about "only be used without specific written permission from HM Treasury", well here is the written permission from HM Treasury Informaion Rights Unit :

"Thank you for your email below. I am advised by our lawyers that you do not need our written permission to re-use the images from HM Treasury if they are under the Open Government Licence. I understand that this is the reason why high definition images of our Ministers are made available in this way; so that they can be re-used" Not only have they asked the government lawyers with regard to whether the person is allowed to use the images on wikipedia, which turns out they can, they also said that this is why they are in high definition so "That they can be re-used".


 * You say that bypasses the real issue, but the real issue is we have two professionally done photographs of ministers that are used on the Government website, that have been allowed by law under the OGL to be added to wikipedia and you are saying that we should instead keep two rather random images instead because the other images were uploaded by a sock, who turns out to have done everything both correctly and legitimately with regard to copyright, and has a clear understanding of British law when it comes to the Open Government Licence which certain editors on here obviously don't. High Peak MP (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Section number 5 on the Treasury copyright page says:


 * "5. Images, photography & maps


 * Images that are the property of the Treasury may be reproduced in certain instances, but not without the prior approval of the Treasury. Permission requests should be directed to editor@hm-treasury.gov.uk. Please tell us who you are, the organisation you represent (if any), the item you wish to use and how and why you wish to use it. Be sure to include your full contact details: name, address, telephone number, fax number and e-mail."


 * Seriously - I know their website is badly written but we've been through this before - unless you have specific written permission to use those images (and the evidence I've seen is very clear that you don't have that) then you can't. I'd have thought you'd have read every part of their copyright page by now to be honest. Similar images have been deleted from wikipedia because of section 5 of the HMT copyright section.


 * And, frankly, the current images are just as good in terms of doing the job we require them to do on wikipedia. Probably better because they aren't so obviously posed. I certainly prefer them to stuffy official images which are designed to be used in promotional ways.


 * In terms of the banned sock - that's a perma-ban. Tbh even if there's legitimate content then it's going to be reverted. Every time. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Did you not read this section "Thank you for your email below. I am advised by our lawyers that you do not need our written permission to re-use the images from HM Treasury if they are under the Open Government Licence.

I understand that this is the reason why high definition images of our Ministers are made available in this way; so that they can be re-used" - This is from HM Treasury saying you do not need their permission, you keeping going on about copyright pages and what their website has said, but HM Treasury has been emailed directly about this and have responded.


 * So what their website says is irrelevant as the Informaion Rights Unit of HM Treasury has not only contacted their lawyers about the OGL, they have also said in black and white in an email "you do not need our written permission to re-use the images from HM Treasury". If the Government Lawyers think it is fine for these images to be used under the OGL on wikipedia, then I fail to understand how some wiki editor believes he knows more about the HM Treasury then their own lawyers. I suggest you contact the users User:Jdforrester (who has a large knowledge on the OGL) and User:Innotata and speak to them about the OGL as you evidently don't understand how it works at all.


 * Whether you prefer the images or not is irrelevant, the fact is these our their Government photographs and so should be added to their articles, as so what if they are used in promotional ways or are posed, these are the images they use whilst in Government end of story and they obviously like them or they wouldn;t use them on the government websites. High Peak MP (talk) 17:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * No, the website is the source. *If* the images have been released under the OGL you can use them. The HMT website doesn't say they have been afaik and makes specific provision for the protection of images beyond that which is normally provided. Sorry.
 * Wrt the government liking them. Yes, that's rather one of my points - it could be argued, how can they provide a NPOV on the subject if they're used by the government to promote itself? And the current ones are just as good if not better. So we have a choice of using an image which is perfectly OK to use or one that has dubious sourcing and is potentially promotional. No brainer - use the current image and move on. It's not worth the problems or the argument.
 * Rather more importantly, banned users and persistent sock puppets will end up having edits reverted on site. You know that. These images certainly fall under that Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Everytime you are proved wrong you swap to make up another excuse, First you said that unless you had written permission from HM Treasury the images couldn't be put on wikipedia, I then showed documents saying that the images could be used and the documents had been sent by HM Treasury. Now you are saying the website is the source, the simple fact is you are wrong and have no idea how either British law or the OGL works so may I suggest you go and do some research. The current images are not better so don't make up rubbish to try and promote your rather baseless arguement. End of the day there is documentation releasing the images under the OGL, they have been advised by their lawyers that the images are fine, so it is not for some random wikipedia editor to tell HM Treasury they are wrong. If you don't like it thats tough because the images are good, so go and do your homework next time. High Peak MP (talk) 13:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Err, yeah -a personal attack always works. I suggest you take a few deep breaths and read through exactly what you and I have written on this page and the relationship between what you're saying the lawyers have written and what it says on the web - there is a really important exclusion in what the lawyers have (allegedly) said. The "if" is really quite important.


 * And let's not lose sight of the whole sock puppetry thing. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)